climategateFollow

I say it is. You say it isn't. Tell me again how this revelation makes your position right and mine wrong?




Which, aside from you simply saying he's wrong, doesn't actually make him wrong. You get how this still revolves around you basically insisting "I'm right!" over and over...? Circular argument is circular.



Are you arguing that the oil industry would not wish to provide campaign funding for politicians who oppose regulation which would cost them money? Why do you assume it only works one way?

This would just be an amusing little quirk on your part except that we're talking about something which is a base component of conservative political philosophy. Conservatives believe in small government. Republicans are going to tend to oppose unnecessary regulation and taxation of private industry by default. You're insisting that the only reason Inhofe opposes Global Warming proposals is because he's receiving campaign funding from oil and energy companies?

Do you even hear yourself? You're basically arguing, not just that an opposing political ideology is wrong, but that it just doesn't even exist. Nope. None of us actually believe that smaller government really is better for us all, despite the long and arduous arguments we make for this, or the long historical context this idea has. Nope. We just pretend we do so that we can all bask in the money we get from the evil oil companies in return for helping them out.

Really? This is what you believe? You can't even acknowledge that some people just plain disagree with you on something and that their reasons for doing so are just as legitimate and valid as your own reasons for holding your position? Gee Joph. I'd be offended, but that seems to be par for the course these days...


You sound like Smash when he goes off on one of his "Everyone who votes Republican is either evil, or being duped by evil". I had assumed your own political ideology wasn't quite so idiotic, but you're starting to make me wonder...




And yet, none of that makes his position wrong. Does it?

It's funny how your position changes based on whether you personally agree with the issue at hand. Circular thinking Joph. How much money has Al Gore made as a result of his political actions in this area? Yet, while I might make some amusing comment towards self interest on his part, I would never argue that Global Warming didn't exist purely because Al Gore is making money off of it.


Something is true or false regardless of who says it and regardless of who stands to gain or lose by it. When will you get this? I've been saying this to you for years, but you still insist on judging things, not based on what they actually are, but on every other thing surrounding the issue of that thing. It's about which party agrees or disagrees, or which professions, or which lobbyists, or which industries, or which musicians, or comedians, or politicians. Joph. It's not about any of those things.


When will you grasp this?




The science doesn't say it Joph. Are you seriously suggesting I hold this position because a political party told me to? That may be how you pick your positions, but it's not how I do it. Maybe I'm a member of the GOP because they tend to arrive at similar conclusions as me. One among them is that when someone tosses out ridiculous predictions based on questionable science and insists that we spend trillions of dollars dealing with this invented problem, that I'm going to say "No".


Some of us take sane and rational positions on things. We don't jump to wild conclusions because someone tells us we should. We tend to believe that if it aint broke, don't fix it, and we have a healthy skepticism towards big government solutions to any problem, let alone one as poorly substantiated as this one. We call ourselves conservatives Joph. And we pick positions on things like Global warming, not because someone told us to, but because it's in our nature to do so.


It's just interesting that you seem to have to believe that conservative positions can't be derived naturally. It's strange, don't you think? Almost as strange as the guy running around screaming the modern equivalent of "the sky is falling" insisting that there's something wrong with the guy who isn't panicking and running around like a chicken with his head chopped off.



You're the one who's taking that position Joph. Not me. I simply said that it's the nature of government to expand its power if it can and that it's important for us citizens to realize this and act to prevent it where possible.

You're the one who started insisting that the entire argument against ACC is wrong because Inhofe receives financial support from the oil industry...




I have been, Joph. I've argued every single scientific point in the issue. I did not resort to name calling, nor insisting that the other guy was wrong because he was agreeing with other people who were wrong because they were funded by yet other people who were wrong. As strange as it seems, that's essentially been your argument. You gave up when you couldn't actually show any science establishing the connection between anthropogenic CO2 levels and temperature increase over time, and resorted to attacking the people instead of the argument.


That's usually an indication that you have lost btw.

You don't have to have faith in them, in fact you probably shouldn't, but that doesn't excuse you from your obligation to attempt to change governmental policy through your grassroots sh*t. You can't just ignore the most obvious manifestation of social responsibility if you want socially pervasive change; you need to change what you have now into something that is not evil and corrupt, into something that you can trust.





Seriously. You do nothing at all aside from relieve your consciounce allowing you to sleep better. And again, you seem to have no idea what you want. You want to change things, but you don't want to use violence or force, or even coercion. Sorry dude, but the likelihood of it happening is too small to be worth mentioning.

Edited, Dec 15th 2009 10:37pm by Pensive

No, actually I tore apart his little press release pretty much point by point back when you first linked to it and say "Haha! Look at THIS!"

That was the time when it was shown that he's wrong. This is just me restating the fact. So I can safely skip every other part where you say "That doesn't mean he's wrong!" unless you can show me where he was right.


Because, if Inhofe actually had a credible reason (besides money) for opposing it, his little press release wouldn't have been such a joke made up of half-truths and straight out lies

So all that stuff where you cry about government? All those paragraphs of you crying about "real conservative values"? It was nice and all but... nah. That doesn't convince me that Inhofe has a reason besides cash for preaching what he does. Nor for the GOP to be sure to give him a platform for his message.

Given that I don't even remember this, you'll have to forgive me Joph.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that your "tearing him apart" still basically consisted of you not agreeing with him, so therefore he's wrong, so therefor his bold claims are just that much more amusing to you or something...



Factually wrong? Or is this a "he said something I disagree with" wrong?




Since I don't know what press release you're referring to, I can't comment Joph. The guy has written a lot of things and made a lot of statements over the years. And he's been opposing the whole global warming nuttiness since well before 2005...


Here's the thing Joph. What is he's right? What if all the people saying that CO2 emissions will increase the temperature of the planet to dangerous levels are wrong? And the end of the day, that's the one and only thing that matters here, right?

What if you are wrong? Have you even even considered this?





I already said I don't know specifically what his reason is. But it doesn't matter, does it? It has zero bearing on whether the issue at hand is right or wrong. It is just as likely that he's funded by the oil folks because he believes in a course of action which benefits them, as that he takes those positions because he's being funded by them. And we can sit here and guess all day long which it might be, but it really doesn't matter.


Either ACC will happen and is as bad as the predictors claim. Or it isn't. And no amount of you pointing out who's supporting whom affects that truth one bit. We can invent new people and pretend that they support or oppose any given position, and then invent new industries which pay them to do this. We can speculate all day long about all the possible ways in which money might influence someone's decisions regarding this issue. But none of that affects the actual truth, does it?


And guess what? The facts we have simply don't support the kind of draconian moves that are being recommended. They just don't. And if you'd get off your ideological high-horse for a moment, you'd realize it. The damage done by the proposals are nearly as bad (possibly worse) than the worst case estimates of damage from ACC. Even the full 2 Degree change wont cause as much total decrease in economic output and the ability for the world to feed it's people as the damage from the "cure". And if they're wrong? We've deliberately hurt ourselves for absolutely no reason...


The policies are what is moronic Joph. Always have been. Some of us have seen this from the start.

Lets go through which policies you are calling out. Unless it's all of them.

That was a good thread.

Moving this thread past post fivethirtyeight with Bad-*** Baucus: Time Traveling Centrist!

Sorry, I want enough packaging so my 50" TV doesn't break during shipping and setup. After it's served it's purpose, I take no issue with recycling those components so they can be used again. You, apparently would rather toss your sh*t in a store, which has virtually zero effect on their bottom line, and helps "the environment" far less than my approach.

IE. Be less retarded?

Also, why do you think that you could get EVERYONE!11! to subscribe to your more effort for less positive outcome strategy? Or even a sizable minority group? This is the part that most boggles the mind. Is there any logical or even illogical but coherent pathway that would take you from here to there?

It's like your strategy is:

1. Assorted 'Eco-friendly" shenanigans
2. Your ideas are spread through some sort of grassroots viral infection
3. ???
4a. noProfit!!!
4b. Corporations lose profit and thus become compassionate stewards of the environment.
5. Banging all the PETA chicks.(NSFW)

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 12:26am by Timelordwho

Heat, chemicals and/or biotics.

Just like other recycling methods.

-----------

Edit:

Also, amazingly enough, polystyrene is recyled in Germany, unlike most places, because the is, get this, a LAW, that forces manufacturers to take care of the packaging they include with their stuff. Oddly enough, they end up with that same end goal you ascribed which was to use less 'stuff' overall for packaging. Shocking really.

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 12:33am by Timelordwho

Because you can generate the energy necessary without increasing you carbon footprint? Yet another reason whole-cloth approaches to problems are much more effective than guerrilla environmentalism. Instituting structural manufacturing responsibility doesn't just manage the resource costs but also the energy costs.

Let me weave you a story:

Option A: Manufacturing Companyâ„¢ produces a TV and packaging each with their own associated wastes. Due to Enviro-regulation XYZ, Manufacturing Companyâ„¢ must deal with it's byproducts. In interests of time I'll only go through the packaging byproducts since they are the one you seem most concerned with. MCâ„¢ collects, and recycles said packaging materials. They get the energy to do so for the grid. The power providers that make up the grid have a similar regulatory substructure, and thus must process their byproducts. Coal company must eliminate/mitigate it's impact etc. Thus the goods/services end up being priced somewhat higher, because of the obvious additional costs. However those subsystems will be reduced in cost over time due to development, scalability etc.

Option B: Manufacturing Companyâ„¢ producing a TV and it's packaging, and Paulso getting huffy that they be disrespectan tha environment, so he hurls the packing peanuts onto the ground and stamps on them, raging against the system that allows such awful things to occur.

All while not trying to change the obviously faulty system.

---------------------

The point here behind regulation isn't to make Evil Oil Co. unprofitable, but so there is an more even playing field amongst the industries. Of course something like coal has less overhead than Solar if you don't make it subsume the responsibility for it's products as well as it's by products. It's like a trade system which takes "Caveat Emptor" as it's only law.

You expect a company to be responsible for it's product, right? Basic Liabilities law here, nothing special. Consumer buys product, product hurts consumer because of flaw, company gets sued. It's just taking that same approach to byproducts that are less sold, but more "given" away to more or less unwilling participants.

If after taking care of those aspects they are still more economically viable than Solar Co., more power to them. Or to us from them.

Isn't it funny that if Manufacturing Companyâ„¢ were liable for the whole process of the materials it uses, they may opt to go with the cardboard packing route rather than a somewhat cheaper to make, but difficult to recycle option?

In your story, is your manufacturing company in the US or China?

If its in China ( 'cos most stuff you buy these days comes from China) how are you getting the packaging back to them so they can 'deal' with it? And the power companies? coal companies? Have you ever been to China? Or anywhere that actually makes that stuff you buy in your stores?

Obviously fucking not. because if you had, you would know that the reason they can make an electric power tool for $10 and sell it on the other side of the world at a profit is because they have NO regulatory standards. Or labour protection. Or fair wages. Or pollution control. And the people making them for you have no health insurance. Or pensions. And they are probably 10 years old and have no future either.

Christ on a bike. Your as thick as fuck.




That musta sounded quite funny in your head when you typed it out. Shame it has nothing to do with what i was talking about.